Trinity

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Explicitly? Hardly! Implicitly at most, by interpretation. Default entitlement and ignorant indoctrination of Trinitarians is bafflingly amazing.

Trinity is most certainly NOT explicitly taught in Scripture, Mr. Semantics. It's inferred.

I don't think I st.. st.. st... stuttered when I declared with an emphatic, "explicitly." It is a foundational truth that Christ pre-existed at the side of the Father prior to the incarnation where He shared glory with the Father, not as the Father. If you wish to discuss this foundational truth of the Christian faith, then we should stop with the monologue, and start with the dialogue.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I don't think I st.. st.. st... stuttered when I declared with an emphatic, "explicitly." It is a foundational truth that Christ pre-existed at the side of the Father prior to the incarnation where He shared glory with the Father, not as the Father. If you wish to discuss this foundational truth of the Christian faith, then we should stop with the monologue, and start with the dialogue.

No need. Trinity is not foundational truth; it's inference propagated by entitled bias of indoctrination. I didn't say you stuttered. I said you are wrong. Trinity is, at best, represented implicitly in scripture. If it were explicit, the text would clearly state the doctrine without formulation by men inferring it from what they (and you, by default indoctrination) perceived as implicit.

Please provide the "explicit" text that says Christ pre-existed at the side of his Father. Surely you're not going to contend dexios is a finite fixed location and the Father has a finite metaphysical form constrained by time and space somehow.

 

[mori]

[FONT=&quot]Byblos[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the inner core of the papyrus plant which Egyptians used to make parchment, is the Semitic word from which the English term “Bible” is derived, and later became known as biblos by the Greeks. You seem to be blurring the line of distinction here between the word “biblos” as it was known, and “Bible” as it is commonly known today. Although the term is mentioned from which the word “Bible” is derived, you seem to be taking the English word “Bible” as we know of it and define it today, that is, the contents of Old and New Testament, and importing it back into the word from which it is derived that means no more than “papyrus,” “book,” or “scroll,” and was commonly used of any form of writing [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Acts 19:19; Matthew 19:7).

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]So the point remains that nowhere in the Old Testament are the sacred writings ever referred to as what we commonly call today, “the Holy Bible,” “Holy Books,” “the sacred Books,” but more importantly, nor does the New Testament. Rather, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Christ and His apostles often times referred to the writings of the Old Testament as the[/FONT][FONT=&quot]γραφή (“Scripture”), and γράμμα (“writings”),[/FONT]

“and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings (γράμμ&#945 which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

“And again another Scripture (γραφ&#942 says, ‘THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.’"​

It wasn’t until the 3rd century that “Ta Biblia” (“The Books”) emerged to exclusively describe the Christian collection of Scriptures. And though this point is only miniscule, it only proves the initial point: Just because a word isn’t present in the text and used to describe the nature and characteristics of God, it doesn’t disqualify it from being true, because by the same token the very title that we commonly use to describe the Scriptures is in no place throughout the Scriptures attributed to the Scriptures.

Alrighty. What about omnipotence?

 

[Joe90]

'Prior to the incarnation, that is, before the birth at Bethlehem, Christ did not have a beginning,'

The Son of God had to have a beginning - the word 'son' denies eternality, or language has lost its meaning.

'rather, He pre-existed (John 1:29-30, 8:23, 8:58)'

I agree he pre-existed, but he doesn't need to be God to pre-exist.

'from eternity at the side of the Father [not "as the Father"] (John 1:1-14, John 17:5),

Only the Father is eternal. Sons have beginnings or language has lost its meaning.

'where He participated in the Genesis creation as co-creator (John 1:3, 10). '

I agree with that. The Us is 'let us make man in our image' is God the Father talking to his only begotten Son, because Christ is the express image of the Father.

Trinitarians and Oneness people might think they believe differing concepts about God, but they both make Jesus his own father, whether you can see that or not.



And John not only depicts Christ in such ways, but also ascribes to Him the very titles, "God" (John 1:1, 18; 20:28), "the Alpha and the Omega" (Revelation 22:13), "the First and the Last" (Revelation 2:8, 22:13), "the Beginning and the End" (Revelation 3:14, 22:13), who just so happens to also be the recipient of prayer (John 14:14; 1 John 5:10-15; Revelation 22:20-21), which in its highest sense is a form of worship. We are not only told that the Father raised Christ from the dead, but that the Son Himself was also active in the participation of His own physical resurrection (John 2:19, 10:17-18).